The requests, however, came a day after U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald asked the impeachment panel not to pursue witnesses connected to the ongoing Blagojevich investigation because it could "significantly compromise" his case. As a result, some panel members said Genson is setting them up by purposely asking for something he knows they can't provide.
Genson said the panel was using Fitzgerald's request as cover to deny Blagojevich a fair impeachment hearing. Genson suggested last week he was considering a potential challenge to the impeachment in federal court.Those questions are not bad ones. Why is Fitz keeping these witnesses under wraps? The only explanation that makes sense to me is that he is making deals with them: "If you help us, we'll try to make sure that the public never finds about XYZ..."
"They are railroading him," Genson said Friday. "If a person is telling the truth, what difference does it make if he tells it twice? How does that hurt their case? That's just the legislature and Mr. Fitzgerald trying to put a reality on something that doesn't make sense."
Deals for what purpose? For testimony against Blagojevich -- or against someone else?
9 comments:
Blago's defense has intriguing possibilities. "I was discouraged by.......... from picking who I thought would be the best person for the job, so I tried to get money in exchange for being coerced to choose someone else which I was then going to turn over to the FBI."
"The FBI blindsided me by ending the investigation before I could collect and turn in the money as I was being coerced."
The defense attorney is being disingenuous - he knows damn good and well why Fitz doesn't want them testifying.
The last thing any prosecutor wants is a defense attorney getting their hands on a witness/suspect, and having them testify under oath where their testimony will serve a different goal than what the prosecutor intends for their testimony later. What they say under oath in the first trial, might be used to impeach what they say in the later trial.
A smart defendent or witness might be very inclined to say something under oath that he knows serves the first trial and makes him a less desirable witness in the second trial and thereby changing the outcome of both.
Tricky stuff. Fitz wants virgins. All prosecutors do. Previous testimony is a gold mind for defense lawyers.
Fitz is in the middle of political jockeying by equally guilty power players looking to one-up each other by shifting the blame. Trying to sort out degrees of complicity between the factions has been what held things up all along in the case against Blago, whose biggest offense is that he's not as good at covering his tracks as his political enemies. Fitz's biggest mistake will probably turn out to be aborting the proceedings before the President-elect was provably implicated.
The only "good guys" in Chicago politics are the ones you own.
IIRC, two Iran-Contra convictions were reversed because the defendants had testified to Congress under grants of immunity.
Ollie North and Poindexter to be exact.
And what Lori said.
If I were in Fitz's shoes, I would not trust the Illinois legislature (i.e., Obama's erstwhile peers and partners in crime...) either. They just might to something to hopelessly compromise (and on purpose, too) the investigation. I doubt there are many members of Illinois legislature genuinely interested in seeing Fitzgerald succeed.
Keep in mind the fact that Bill Ayers supposedly got off because of FBI misconduct. Given his father's friendship with Mayor Daley I and other power brokers in government, industry and education at the time, it seems that there is a slippery slope when it comes to building a case against Chicago insiders. The deal making never ends with them...it is their life blood. Blago is doing the usual Chicago Way...buying time until he can work his deals.
The simplest explanation is that he's after bigger fish. Who might that be?
The legislature wanted Blago to go away at least semi-quietly and shut the hell up. They also know that a prosecutor will not give up his evidence until he is finished and ready for trial. Fitzgerald is not giving them his evidence so they can look like they are doing something, anything while Fitzgerald keeps pulling the thread. They also know that an impeachment with no witnesses could possibly be thrown out in court and it would look like a clown circus. They are probably also doing this for Obama et al to try to get the evidence for them. The Obama administration does not know what is on the tapes, only what JJJr, Emanuel, and other members of their Tong "say" they said on the tapes. There is a good possibility they they are lying to each other to bluff their way forward to stay in the game. This WH is going to be a shark swarm.
Anybody else hear that the real story of Blago selling the seat is because Blago wanted to appoint a possible opponent in order to keep him/her out of contention for Blago's reelection since Blago realized he was getting no payback from Obama? Then apparently, Obama got wind of Blago's desire to appoint a rival and sicked Emmanuel on him after the election.
Thought this made pretty good sense for motive by Obama.
What do you all think about Fitgerald's renewed interest in the Rezko house deal?
FembotsForObama
Post a Comment